Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41882783›Full record

ArticleActa veterinaria Scandinavica2026

The diagnostic performance of point-of-care tests for serum amyloid A and C-reactive protein in lame sows.

Nadia Jakobsen, Inge Larsen, Nicolai Rosager Weber, Ken Steen Pedersen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta veterinaria Scandinavica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nadia JakobsenDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark. najak@sund.ku.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-2455-4019
Inge LarsenDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Nicolai Rosager WeberDanish Agriculture & Food Council F.m.b.A, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ken Steen PedersenDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor acute phase proteins to be implemented in routine diagnostics for pig herds, a fast, reliable, and portable point-of-care test is required. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of two point-of-care tests on lame gestating sows. The two tests were the Cobas b101 CRP test for C-reactive protein and OmniChek

resultsThe C-reactive protein point-of-care test had a concordance with the ELISA results of 0.12 (95% confidence limits: 0.12-0.23) and a mean difference of - 30.98 µg/mL (Limits of agreement: 27.45 and - 89.40 µg/mL), with a clear proportional bias. The serum amyloid A point-of-care test was only in agreement with the ELISA results in two out of 49 samples. The serum amyloid A test overestimated the serum amyloid A levels, whereas the C-reactive protein point-of-care test underestimated the C-reactive protein levels.

conclusionsCurrently, the two point-of-care tests cannot be reliably used to determine acute phase protein levels in blood samples from lame gestating sows.

Indexed as

C-Reactive ProteinPoint-of-Care SystemsPoint-of-Care TestingSerum Amyloid A ProteinSwine DiseasesAnimalsEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFemalePregnancyRapid Diagnostic TestsSensitivity and SpecificitySwineC-Reactive ProteinSerum Amyloid A ProteinC-reactive proteinDiagnostic performanceEvaluationPoint-of-care testsSandwich ELISASerum amyloid a

Identifiers

PMID41882783
PMCPMC13015171

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.